Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silly Goose Productions

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Goose Productions

Silly Goose Productions is an independant [sic] movie studio founded in Spokane, Washington in 2004 by Neil Vanos, Mark Soissons, and Adam Van Hoy. The company has produced several popular comedy films... Google hints that something called "Silly Goose Productions" exists, but there's no hint that it makes movies. Googling for "silly goose" plus any one of "vanos", "soissons" and "hoy" is equally uninformative. This is either a hoax, or unnotable. (You may also be interested in Bryan Schwor, an article about a no-budget movie that it has allegedly created.) -- Hoary 08:15, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete as per Bryan Schwor. --InShaneee 19:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unverifiable. Xezbeth 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bryan Schwor, which I have seen.CalveroTheFlame
  • User has ten edits.
• Keep see Bryan Schwor Zechenia 10:24, Apr 13, 2005
  • Zechenia has four edits. User:148.63.153.45, who wrote the above comment, also has four.
• Delete. Radiant_* 08:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, Idahoan socks, but it's delete from me. --Calton | Talk 11:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Brian Schwor. -R. fiend 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia:Vanity page describes vanity as an article which describes a person, but says "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." This may be a small film companies movie, but by wikipedia's standards is not vanity. It should also be noted that "A page should not be cast away as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." Therefore, does not deserve deletion.-Zechenia 11:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: that wasn't posted by Zechenia but by an IP number. Wikipedia:Vanity page isn't fixed policy -- which is good, because the last part that was quoted is very bizarre. (If there is indeed no consensus about the necessary value of X, this implies that the value of X is debatable. If the value of X is debatable, why should we unquestioningly follow the author when he/she tells us that it's zero?) As for This may be a small film companies movie, I thought it was claimed to be a company, not a movie. -- Hoary 06:54, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
    • I believe the debate over Bryan Schwor has spilled into this. Calm down. Actually, upon reading that, It looks as if someone went to the comment in Bryan Schwor felt it was important to be seen here, and pasted the code here(including my username). All though it isn't fixed policy it was posted because it is policy, and should be known by those who vote--Zechenia 18:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Calm down" -- who, me? I've calmly pointed out that that the policy isn't fixed (as you concede), that it's confused, and that this company appears to be of negligible notability. -- Hoary 08:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Comment You seemed to be over reacting to someones mistake. This article and Bryan Schwor seem to go in hand, so someone copied a point I made in the other article here. --Zechenia 19:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm in keeping something that is real, even if it is sort of small. The point of Wikipedia is that you find articles on hear that you wouldn't normally find anywhere else.
  • Comment: That was posted at 20:40, 2005 Apr 16 by 24.22.233.231, an IP number whose only contributions have been related to this company, its movie, and the person who inspired the movie. -- Hoary 03:59, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • Commment Just so you know, IP numbers can changed. User who have dialup will have a different IP address everytime they sign on -- Zechenia 17:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That comment was not by Zechenia but instead made in three edits between 17:52 and 17:57 on 2005 Apr 17 by 148.63.153.45. -- Hoary 08:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Keep The Vanity Page does specifically say that pages about small companies or musicians are not considered vanity. This page definitely falls under the category of a small company. Disobeying the Wikipedia guidelines in order to improve Wikipedia strikes me as hypocritical. MooVLuvr 17:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above user is actually User:MooVluvr. We don't have user named MooVLuvr. jni 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh no, he forgot the capital L. Some people seem overly critical. --Zechenia 19:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of above user's 11 edits, 10 are to VfD and 6 of those directly related to this matter. And yes, it is extra work to cleanup after newbies who put their userpage to wrong location and cannot even spell their own account name. jni 04:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unable to verify this is encyclopedic. Too many sockpuppets. jni 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, somewhat notable. --168.212.165.131 15:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has suddenly gone on a "keep every vanity article" spree. What's up with that? RickK 19:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How can I take this movie company seriously when its company's web site is on GeoCities, the free web hosting service. [1] Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 03:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously there is interest in this and strong support for it. Though it appears small and hardly notable, I'll error on the side of preservation rather than destruction of something that appears to be so beloved that it has drawn such sockpuppetry. Furthermore, after continued examination into this site, I find they claim to have "financial difficulties" which have caused them to seek a "temporary" geocities site. For some reason, I doubt the "temporary" status of this site. --Fritz9000 07:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's account was created on April 20. RickK 19:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Mocking someone for an error in the completing of their signature is inappropriate and unnecessarily mean-spirited. Don't ostracize someone like that again. If you notice they're having problems, message them privately. Commenting on it in a public forum with such sarcasm is not constructive; what you're doing is being a jerk. Don't take too much pride in being an expert at Wikipedia formatting. There are greater endeavors in life. --Fritz9000 07:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 07:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Somewhat noteworthy. --168.212.165.131 17:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that votes from IP numbers count, but anyway your IP number had already been used for a (would-be) vote: see above. -- Hoary 00:36, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

• Keep. First off, it's unfair to not count IP address votes. If anything they prevent sockpuppetry because it's easy to see who is on a computer. Second, I love this. --67.106.16.59 02:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to their site, they charge $29.95 for a DVD copy of their film. Talk about overpriced...--Fritz9000 06:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.